So this may sound really weird, but now that I'm done with the MBE subjects, I'm starting to regain confidence in my ability to "win" this. I don't think my knowledge is there yet, but I feel like it's more manageable that it seemed at first. I just think that if I keep reviewing, I can only learn more and do better in the actual thing. But this could all just be wishful thinking.

zot1 wrote:So this may sound really weird, but now that I'm done with the MBE subjects, I'm starting to regain confidence in my ability to "win" this. I don't think my knowledge is there yet, but I feel like it's more manageable that it seemed at first. I just think that if I keep reviewing, I can only learn more and do better in the actual thing. But this could all just be wishful thinking.

Rant over.

By done do you just mean you've gotten through all the outlines and lectures? Or the practice questions, too?

The producer of an organic pet food shipped his products nationwide. His business and production offices were located in State A, the state in which he lived. After one pet owner’s animal became sick due to toxins that had leaked into the producer’s production supply, the owner filed a lawsuit in federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction in State B, the state in which he lived. A federal food regulation act governed the processes for how nutrition, including that applicable to animals, should be regulated. The producer did not meet those regulations, but did meet the lower standards required by State B. If the district court applied the State B statute, the producer would be absolved of any liability. Must the district court enforce the federal statute?

Correct answer: Yes, because the federal statute regulates nutrition as it relates to pets.

This seems completely wrong to me as it's a substantive issue in a diversity suit. The only thing I can think of is that the question doesn't specifically state this is a state law claim, ergo it's a federal question based on the federal statute, but why go through the whole diversity explanation then? Was that just a red herring that I fell for?

Thanks in advance!

It's kind of a red herring. Typically, an Erie analysis occurs when there is no federal law because Congress cannot or has not legislated in that area. In Erie, the court below applied "federal common law" (i.e., made-up federal law). Here, Congress has specifically legislated on a topic and so that trumps state law. Hope that helps!

HAHAHAHA, oh that is far more simple than I'd imagined. I'm over this bar prep thing. I don't feel super stressed or anything, but damn if my brain just stops functioning at certain times. Yesterday I forgot my ATM pin number and literally could not remember it, having to call my bank and be like "HALP!" Dreaming about bar topics has started too. Oy.

I thought the Con Law lectures were good as I was watching them, but in retrospect I'm finding they were NOT helpful. Usually I consult the lecture handouts as I'm doing the MBE questions, and I'm able to find the answers pretty easily. But I've been bombing con law questions with this method, mostly because there is so much missing info. SO MUCH.

zot1 wrote:So this may sound really weird, but now that I'm done with the MBE subjects, I'm starting to regain confidence in my ability to "win" this. I don't think my knowledge is there yet, but I feel like it's more manageable that it seemed at first. I just think that if I keep reviewing, I can only learn more and do better in the actual thing. But this could all just be wishful thinking.

Rant over.

No, I think you are right. Now it's possible to actually think about the issues and spend time on memorizing them instead of just "drinking water from the hose" and trying to recall your 1L memories. We can do this, it's really quite manageable.

I only play them to get the % points, and I do the questions in the handouts on my own with her on pause or mute. Her Best Evidence Rule tip was literally the worst tip I've received regarding the bar exam.

In other news, how is a 90 minute MPT worth only 0.3%? I just finished one, and while I'm getting better at doing them quickly and well within the time limit, it's kind of annoying to spend that chunk of time only to see you barely made a dent in your day's assignment load.

zot1 wrote:So this may sound really weird, but now that I'm done with the MBE subjects, I'm starting to regain confidence in my ability to "win" this. I don't think my knowledge is there yet, but I feel like it's more manageable that it seemed at first. I just think that if I keep reviewing, I can only learn more and do better in the actual thing. But this could all just be wishful thinking.

Rant over.

By done do you just mean you've gotten through all the outlines and lectures? Or the practice questions, too?

I've gotten through lectures and the majority of practice questions (whatever Themis has scheduled me so far). But I'm doing the UBE so I didn't have to go through any state distinctions. I still have to review the long outlines, which I have mostly skimmed in the past, but after the two milestone exams, this no longer feels like the end of the world to me. It's feeling more and more doable.

zot1 wrote:So this may sound really weird, but now that I'm done with the MBE subjects, I'm starting to regain confidence in my ability to "win" this. I don't think my knowledge is there yet, but I feel like it's more manageable that it seemed at first. I just think that if I keep reviewing, I can only learn more and do better in the actual thing. But this could all just be wishful thinking.

Rant over.

No, I think you are right. Now it's possible to actually think about the issues and spend time on memorizing them instead of just "drinking water from the hose" and trying to recall your 1L memories. We can do this, it's really quite manageable.

I get what you guys are saying about the %'s being off, definitely see that. But don't be a slave to their stupid percentages. Just do a reasonable amount of work each day or your brain isn't going to accept the information as well.

somuchbooty wrote:I get what you guys are saying about the %'s being off, definitely see that. But don't be a slave to their stupid percentages. Just do a reasonable amount of work each day or your brain isn't going to accept the information as well.

Totally agree. I've definitely been noticing the same thing re the %s.

Yes I skip basically all the workshops. I might listen to the first part where they give tips at 2x but otherwise (and even then) I don't find them to be of much (or really any) help at all w/r/t the way I work.

Also I'm curious where other CA-ers are in their percentages. I'm at 42%--fell behind a bit after taking a few days off.

When the lecturer doesn't say the sentences in the outline and I have no idea what words go in what blanks - ughhh! Can't they change the outlines to mimic what the lecturer is saying? I hate being left to guess what the lecturer meant to say.

kjartan wrote:Can anyone explain Themis's percentage system? One day, I read 57 pages of an outline and it's .7%, the next I read 50 pages and it's .2%. What gives?

Update: .5% for the second set of Civ Pro lectures, .7% for the first. Good shit, Themis.

This drives me insane. You want to create an arbitrary set of percentages that values a 36 minute essay more than 4 hours of lectures? Fine, I guess. I can adjust to that. But when Tuesday's essay is worth less than half of Wednesday's identical essay, it makes the progress bar completely useless for planning purposes.